THE  I>llOrOSED 
PHONETIC  KEY  ALPHABET 


SOME  practical.  POINTS 
THAT  SHOULD  BE 
CONSIDERED 


THE  PKACTICAL  POINTS  STATE]3 

1.  It  differs  materially  from  the  alphabet  indorsed  by 
the  American  Philological  Association  and  by  the  Modem 
Language  Association.  It  is,  in  fact,  an  independent  alpha- 
bet used  by  no  other  body. 

2.  It  disregards  present  English  usage  as  to  the  sounds 
of  many  vowels  and  substitutes  the  sounds  that  these 
vowels  have  in  the  Continental  languages  : thus,  a in  face, 
rate,  etc.,  would  be  represented  by  e ; e in  me,  knee,  etc., 
by  i;  the  i in  ice,  fight,  etc.,  would  be  represented  by  ai. 

3.  It  is  an  insidious  move  toward  bringing  the  N.  E.  A. 
ultimately  to  indorse  the  substitution  of  phonetic  spelling 
with  this  alphabet  for  our  present  English  spelling. 

4.  It  teaches  erroneous  ideas  as  to  the  real  differences  in 
sound  ; thus  it  teaches  that  the  sound  of  e in  prey  is  the 
same  as  the  sound  of  e in  met  prolonged.  This  is  not  true. 
Nor  is  e in  me  the  same  as  i in  it  prolonged  ; nor  is  u in 
urge  the  same  as  u in  up  prolonged. 

5.  Many  of  its  symbols  are  ill-formed  and  lack  the  es- 
sential quality  of  distinctiveness. 

6.  It  proposes  to  substitute  for  an  alphabet  already  well- 
known,  and  used  in  millions  of  textbooks  and  reference 
books,  another  alphabet  which  in  a very  similar  form  has 
been  used  by  one  publisher  only,  and  has  proved  so  flat  a 
failure  when  tried  in  textbooks  that  the  series  is  not  in  use 
and  has  confessedly  been  withdrawn  from  the  market. 

7.  Some  of  the  arguments  in  the  final  report  need  care- 
ful testing. 


THE  PKAC^llCAL  POINTS  DISCUSSED 


I.  It  differs  materially  from  the  alphabet  indorsed  by 
the  American  Philological  Association  and  by  the  Modern 
Language  Association.  It  is,  in  fact,  an  independent  alpha- 
bet used  by  no  other  body. 

This  proposed  N.  E.  A.  alphabet  started  in  a inovenient  to 
secure  an  agreement  between  the  Modern  Language  Associa- 
tion, the  American  Philological  Association,  and  the  National 
Education  Association  in  recommending  a phonetic  alphabet 
in  the  hope,”  as  stated  in  the  report  of  the  Committee  in 
February  1904, that  the  recommendations  of  these  bodies  ” 
will  bring  it  into  “universal  use  in  our  dictionaries,  spelling 
books  and  their  manuals.” 

The  result  has  been  the  sanctioning  of  one  alphabet  by  the 
Modern  Language  Association  and  the  American  Philologi- 
cal Association  that  they  “ recommend  to  the  makers  of  dic- 
tionaries ” and  the  proposition  that  the  N.  E.  A.  shall  adopt 
another  alphabet  that  they  recommend  “ for  uniform  use  in  in- 
dicating pronunciation  in  all  our  cyclopedias,  dictionaries, 
gazetteers,  text  and  reference  books.” 

What-  then  shall  the  publisher  do  ? He  is  using  a practi- 
cal system  that  is  widely  known  and  generally  accepted  as 
good.  He  is  urged  by  some  philologists  to  discard  this  in 
favor  of  a second  alphabet  and  by  some  superintendents  to 
discard  it  in  favor  of  a third  alphabet. 

From  some  statements  in  some  of  the  N.  E.  A.  Committee 
reports,  a wrong  inference  may  be  drawn  as  to  the  amount 
of  disagreement' between  these  two  proposed  alphabets. 

They  are  shown  on  the  next  page.  The  left-hand  column 
of  the  two  columns  headed  “ letter  ” is  the  proposed  N.  E.  A. 
alphabet.  The  right-hand  one  shows  the  21  symbols  that  the 
Modern  Language  and  American  Philological  associations 
have  adopted  to  replace  the  corresponding  N.  E.  A.  symbols. 
Of  course,  any  two  alphabets  using  the  Roman  letters  must 


2 


THE  PHONETIC  KEY  ALPHABET 


Letter 

Key-word 

d 

A 

a 

art 

a 

a 

artistic 

cd 

ai 

aisle,  find 

au 

au 

out,  thou 

, 

a 

se 

air 

a 

ae 

at 

b 

be 

dh 

chew 

d 

day 

A 

e 

e 

prey 

e 

men 

f 

fee 

g 

go 

h 

he 

A 

marine 

1 

1 

i 

iu  iu 

tin 

iu| 

ju  ju 

mute 

j 

jaw 

k 

kin 

1 

let 

m 

met 

n 

net 

I) 

sing 

0 

0 

note 

0 

poetic 

Letter 

Key-word 

e 

A 

e 

nor 

e 

not 

ei 

oil 

P 

pit 

r 

rat 

s 

set 

j 

ship 

t 

ten 

fh 

> 

thin 

A 

that 

u 

A 

u 

mood 

u 

push 

•• 

A 

XJ 

u 

urge 

u 

hut 

V 

vat 

w 

win 

y 

j 

yes 

z 

zest 

3 

azure 

for  a in 

ask 

f‘.i  a 

about 

1“  e‘.‘. 

over 

“ i “ candid 
“ e“  added 


THE  IMIONETIC  KEY  Al.PHABET 


3 


agree  as  to  b,  d,  f,  g,  li,  k,  1,  in,  n,  p,  r,  s,  t,  v,  w,  and  z, 
that  is,  in  IG  of  the  47  symbols  there  is  no  chance  for  dis- 
agreement. For  21  of  the  remaining  81  sounds  the  proposed 
N.  E.  A.  alphabet  gives  one  symbol  and  the  Philological  and 
Modern  Language  alphabet  gives  another.  In  H of  these 
cases  it  is  a different  form  of  letter.  In  some  cases  one  alpha- 
bet assigns  one  value  to  a symbol,  while  the  other  assigns 
another  value  to  the  same,  or  a similar,  symbol ; thus,  a in 
the  proposed  N.  E.  A.  alphabet  has  the  sound  of  a ” in  at,” 
but  in  the  other  alphabet  it  has  the  sound  of  ''  a ” in  artistic.” 
This  is  certainly  confusion  worse  confounded. 

In  one  vital  respect  the  Philological  and  Modern  Language 
alphabet  is  markedly  superior  to  the  N.  E.  A.  proposal  — 
namely,  in  its  avoidance  of  the  use  of  the  macron.  For  many 
generations  in  English  the  macron  has  been  associated  with 
the  name-sound  of  the  vowels  (a  as  in  ale;  e,  me;  I,  ice;  o, 
note ; u,  use),  and  to  use  it  now  with  another  meaning  would 
introduce  a chance  for  serious  trouble  and  misunderstand- 
ing. The  circumflex  is  certainly  much  better. 

It  seems  hardly  necessary  to  add  that  the  alphabet  of  the 
Modern  Language  Association  and  American  Philological 
Association,  wherein  it  differs  from  the  proposed  K.  E.  A. 
symbols,  was  made  to  differ  by  men  who  are  thoroughly  fa- 
miliar with  this  subject  and  with  the  various  alphabets  that 
have  been  recommended.  They  know  by  experience  the  weak 
points  of  former  systems  and,  undoubtedly,  have  tried  to  im- 
prove on  the  past.  For  the  IST.  E.  A.  committee  to  claim  credit 
because  their  recommendations  agree  with  an  alphabet  made 
in  1877  is  for  them  to  say  in  effect  that  no  improvement  is 
possible  over  the  1877  recommendation.  The  American  Philo- 
logical Association  and  Modern  Language  Association,  from 
their  greater  familiarity  with  the  subject,  recognized  defects 
that  could  be  remedied. 

These  disagreements,  then,  are  vital.  That  they  are  firial  is 
indicated  by  the  action  of  the  Modern  Language  Association, 
who,  at  their  last  meeting,  discharged  their  Committee  that 
had  conferred  with  the  N.  E.  A.  committee  on  this  subject  — 
after  accepting  their  recommendation  that  no  further  action 
of  the  Modern  Language  Association  seemed  necessary. 


4 


THE  PHONETIC  KEY  ALPHABET 


Dr.  Hanns  Oertel,  Professor  of  Linguistics  and  Compara- 
tive Philology  at  Yale  University,  has  written:  ‘‘I  do  not 
think  that  the  transcription  proposed  by  the  N.  E.  A.  meets 
the  requirements  of  a scientific  transcription.  A number  of 
the  symbols  are  misleading  if  judged  from  the  scientific 
standpoint.  I also  have  the  gravest  doubts  as  to  its  practical 
acceptability,  and  I regard  the  multiplication  of  methods  of 
transcription  not  only  as  useless  but  as  harmful.” 

If  any  alphabet  of  this  khid  is  to  be  adopted,  would  it  not 
be  far  better  to  take  one  that  is  as  nearly  satisfactory  as  pos- 
sible to  the  experts  in  phonetics  ? 

But  is  this  kind  of  an  alphabet  the  best  for  popular  use  ? 

This  brings  us  to  the  vital  second  point. 

2.  It  disregards  present  English  usage  as  to  the  sounds 
of  many  of  the  vowels  and  substitutes  for  English  values 
the  sounds  that  these  vowels  have  in  Continental  Europe. 

The  basis  of  this  proposed  alphabet  is  the  European  vowel 
system,  which  differs  radically  from  the  English  vowel  sys- 
tem in  many  particulars,  especially  in  the  following : the 
sound  of  a ” in  ‘‘  ale  ” is  represented  by  the  letter  ''e  ” ; the 
sound  of  e ” in  me  ” by  the  letter  ''  i ” ; the  sound  of  ‘‘  oo  ” 
in  moose  ” by  the  letter  ‘‘  u ” ; the  sound  of  ‘‘  i ” in  “ ice  ” 
by  the  letters  ''  ai.”  In  considering  the  advisability  of  adopt- 
ing the  alphabet  with  such  a basis,  several  things  should  be 
borne  in  mind. 

a.  The  decision  to  use  this  basis  was  reached  at  a very 
small  preliminary  meeting  of  the  Committees  of  the  Na- 
tional Education  Association,  the  American  Philological  As- 
sociation, and  the  Modern  Language  Association  after  a 
purely  informal  discussion  at  which  the  needs  of  the  ele- 
mentary schools  had  no  just  representation.  The  meeting 
was  almost  entirely  in  the  hands  of  theoretical  phoneticians, 
men  who  were  not  personally  familiar  with  the  problems  of 
the  public  schools.  Nevertheless,  because  of  the  standing 
of  these  men  in  their  particular  field,  their  action  has,  no 
doubt,  been  very  influential  in  affecting  the  decisions  of  all 
subsequent  questions.  Further,  the  basis  adopted  was  the 
American  Philological  Association  alphabet  of  1877.  This  al- 


THE  PHONETIC  KEY  ALPHABET 


5 


phabet  was  devised  by  Professors  Whitney,  March,  Child, 
Trumbull,  and  Haldeman,  all  men  of  the  most  thorough 
scholarship  in  phonetics,  but  none  of  them  teachers  in  the 
elementary  schools.  It  should  be  remembered,  also,  that  both 
Whitney  and  Haldeman  later  edited  dictionaries  in  which 
they  did  not  use  this  alphabet,  but  adopted  one  based  on  the 
name-sound  of  the  vowels. 

b.  The  use  of  this  European  vowel  system  will  affect 
a very  large  number  of  words.  It  is,  of  course,  recognized  as 
true  that  centuries  ago  the  English  vowel  sounds  corre- 
sponded pretty  closely  with,  and  were  represented  by,  the 
same  letters  as  the  vowel  sounds  of  the  European  languages, 
but  today  in  English  the  a ” in  ale  ” is  almost  universally 
represented  by  the  letter  a,”  and  not  by  the  letter  e,”  as  is 
proposed  in  the  N.  E.  A.  alphabet ; the  sound  of  “ e ” in  me  ” 
is  usually  represented  by  the  letter  e,”  and  not  by  the  letter 
“ i ” ; the  sound  of  “ i ” in  ‘‘  ice  ” is  almost  always  represented 
by  the  letter  ‘‘i,”  and  only  very  rarely  by  a diphthong 

ai  ” ; the  sound  of  “ oo  ” is  represented  by  a double  “ o ” and 
only  in  rather  exceptional  cases  by  the  u.” 

Conversely  the  digraph  “ ai  ” in  ordinary  spelling  (fail,  pail, 
mail,  pain,  etc.)  represents  the  sound  of  a ” in  ‘‘  ale,”  but  in 
this  phonetic  respelling  ‘‘ai  ” will  represent  the  sound  of  “ i ” 
in  “ ice  ” ; similarly  “ au  ” usually  sounds  as  in  “ caught  ” and 
“ Paul,”  but  in  this  new  respelling  “ au  ” will  indicate  the 
sound  of  “ou”in  “out.”  Confusion  is  sure  to  result  from 
its  use. 

The  following  figures  are  of  interest  in  this  connection. 
The  vocabulary  of  a school  dictionary  has  been  taken  as  being 
one  that  would  be  fairly  representative,  and  the  words  begin- 
ning with  “ A ” and  “ B ” have  been  considered.  In  these 
words  the  sound  of  “ a ” in  “ ale  ” occurs  in  395  words  and  is 
represented  by  the  letter  “ a ” in  383  of  these  395  cases.  If  the 
t proposed  alphabet  is  adopted  all  of  these  “ a ” sounds  would 
be  respelled  “e.”  The  sound  of  “i”  in  “ice”  occurs  in  188 
words,  and  in  187  cases  it  is  spelled  with  the  letter  “i”  (or 
“y”).  All  of  these  would  be  respelled  “ai”  by  the  new  al- 
phabet. The  sound  of  “ e ” in  “ eve  ” and  in  “ event  ” is  found 
in  267  words.  In  263  cases  the  sound  is  spelled  with  an  “ e ” 


6 


THE  PHONETIC  KEY  ALPHABET 


(in  14  with  an  ‘"ie,”  believe,  etc.),  but  in  the  new  alphabet  it 
would  be  respelled  with  I.”  Figures  like  these  show  conclu- 
sively? if  proof  be  needed,  that  English  has  developed  a 
vowel  system  of  its  own,  and  it  would  certainly  seem  better 
for  the  N.  E.  A.  to  devote  its  reform  efforts  to  something  else 
than  the  fostering  in  English  of  a use  of  the  Continental 
vowel  system.  Of  all  the  great  European  tongues  English  is 
the  only  one  that  shows  a relative  increase  in  the  number  of 
persons  using  it.  According  to  Mulhall  the  percentage  of 
individuals  using  each  of  the  great  European  tongues  in 
comparison  with  the  total  number  using  these  tongues  was 
as  follows  in  1801  and  1901. 

The  percentage  of  English  in  1801  was  13.7,  in  1901,  29.3 


( i 

French  “ “ 

“ 19.4, 

“ “ 11.7 

t i 

Italian  “ “ 

“ 9.3, 

“ “ 7.0 

( ( 

Spanish  “ “ 

“ 16.2, 

“ “ 10.4 

( ( 

German  “ “ 

“ 18.7, 

“ “ 18.8 

n 

Portuguese  “ “ 

4.7, 

“ “ 3.3 

( < 

Russian  “ “ 

“ 19. 

“ “ 19. 

The  case  for  an  American  is  even  stronger.  For  probably 
90%  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  English  is  the  com- 
mon and  only  tongue. 

Why,  then,  should  not  English  conform  to  its  own  princi- 
ples? Paul  Hanus  of  Harvard  University,  Professor  of  the 
History  and  Art  of  Teaching,  has  said : “ It  seems  absurd  to 
me  to  reach  into  a foreign  language  to  teach  an  English- 
speaking  child  the  sounds  of  the  letters  in  his  own  language.” 

The  effect  of  using  these  un-English  values  appears  more 
clearly  in  the  following  list  of  words  with  their  pronuncia- 
tion indicated  according  to  the  proposed  Alphabet. 


THE  PHONETIC  KEY  ALPHABET  7 

A FEW  TYPICAL  RESPELLINGS  ACCORDING  TO 
THE  PROPOSED  N.  E.  A.  ALPHABET 

The  second  list  shows  the  ordinary  spellings.  Don’t  be  sure  you  know  the  word 


until  you  consult 

1 miin'lait 

2 miin'lait  nait 

3 mun'lait  sel 

4 mun'bimz 

5 mun'gled 

6 mlin'shain 

7 de'lait 

8 di-lait' 

9 rain 

10  ren 

11  paut 

12  par 

13  par 

14  pen 
16  pin 

16  pain 

17  pain-trl  stet 

18  mel'tren 

19  mel'pauch 

20  ail 

21  ais 

22  ais'krim 

23  ais'baund 

24  sii)'ii) 

25  tich'or 

26  pre'irj 

27  dai'ii] 

28  sai 

29  fut'sthl 

30  tru'li 

31  ru'ral 

32  ftu'char 

33  piur 

34  fad 

35  le 

36  tul 

37  stll 

38  stall 

39  buk 

40  hed'ek 

41  Ir'ek 

42  tuth'ek 

43  skdr 

44  skar 

45  sket 

46  grep'vain 

47  raut 

48  plau 

49  luk'aut 
60  skaut 


die  ordinary  spelling 

51  strit'kdr 

52  strlt'sain 

53  strlt'rel'we 

54  buk'kip-ar 

55  buk'mek-0r 
66  buk'baind-ii] 

57  buk'dll-0r 

58  niuz'dll-0r 

59  haus'klp-0r 

60  skul'buk 

61  si'said 

62  bruk'said 

63  bich'trl 

64  me'p’l-tri 

65  kuk'buk 

66  krik 

67  ais'baund  strct 

68  haid'baund 

69  kaunt'ii)  haus 

70  kaunt'ii)  rum 

71  faun-de'shun 

72  skul'haus 

73  fain 

74  lain 

75  shain 

76  flit  paund 

77  pur  fud 

78  hwel 

79  pur'haus 

80  pau'wdu 

81  tek'0r 

82  mek'0r 

83  ret 

84  ag'ri-get 

85  met 

86  let 

87  miut  (here  i) 

88  fil'yel  (here  y) 

89  mlt 

90  fai'nait 

91  in'fi-nit 

92  pl'nal 

93  pen'al-ti 

94  ka-pe'shus 

95  ka-pas'i-ti 

96  siv'il-aiz 

97  siv-il-i-ze'shun 

98  o-p6k' 

99  o-pas'i-ti 
00  rl'bet 


1 moonlight 

2 moonlight  night 

3 moonlight  sail 

4 moonbeams 

5 moonglade 

6 moonshine 

7 daylight 

8 delight 

9 Rhine 

10  rain 

11  pout 

12  par 

13  pair 

14  pain 

15  peen 

16  pine 

17  Pinetree  State 

18  mailtrain 

19  mailpouch 

20  isle 

21  ice 

22  icecream 

23  icebound 

24  singing 

25  teacher 

26  praying 

27  dying 

28  sigh 

29  footstool 

30  truly 

31  rural 

32  future 

33  pure 

34  food 

35  law 

36  tool 

37  steel 

38  style 

39  book 

40  headache 

41  earache 

42  toothache 

43  scar 

44  scare 

45  skate 

46  grapevine 

47  rout 

48  plow 

49  lookout 

50  scout 


51  street  car 

52  street  sign 

53  street  railway 

54  bookkeeper 

55  bookmaker 

56  bookbind-ing 

57  bookdealer 

58  newsdealer 

59  housekeeper 

60  schoolbook 

61  seaside 

62  brookside 

63  beechtree 

64  mapletree 
66  cookbook 

66  creek 

67  icebound  strait 

68  hidebound 

69  counting  house 

70  counting  room 

71  foundation 

72  schoolhouse 

73  fine 

74  line 

75  shine 

76  foot  pound 

77  poor  food 

78  whale 

79  poorhouse 

80  powwow 

81  taker 

82  maker 

83  rate 

84  aggregate 

85  mate 

86  late 

87  mute 

88  filial 

89  meat 

90  finite 

91  infinite 

92  penal 

93  penalty 

94  capacious 

95  capacity 

96  civilize 

97  civilization 
93  opaque 

99  opacity 
100  rebate 


8 


THE  PHONETIC  KEY  ALPHABET 


3.  It  is  an  insidious  move  toward  bringing  the  N.  E.  A. 
ultimately  to  indorse  the  substitution  of  phonetic  spelling 
with  this  alphabet  for  our  present  English  spelling. 

In  a printed  communication  privately  circulated  the  chair- 
man of  the  committee  has  stated : — 

“My  hope  has  been,  were  any  control  of  the  working  policy  of  our 
branch  [of  the  simplified  Spelling  Board]  allowed  me,  to  quietly  organ- 
ize a wide  side-campaign  to  revive  and  stimulate  the  teaching  of  fonetics 
in  the  schools.  . . . 

''lam  satisfied  this  could  he  done  without  suggesting  any  hearing  what- 
ever upon  the  spelling  reform  movement.  The  schools  need  this  revival. 
A large  portion  of  the  young  people  of  the  country  could  he  familiarized 
with  this  alphabet  through  school  practice  hy  efforts  perfectly  legitimate. 

“ It  would  require  considerable  money,  systematic  work,  and  at  least 
six  or  eight  years  of  time.  But  when  accomplished,  the  way  would  be 
prepared  and  short  for  the  gradual  adoption  of  the  [then]  familiar  Key 
Alphabet,  say  one  letter,  or  a differentiated  pair  of  letters,  at  a time, 
into  everyday  use. 

“With  the  endorsement  of  our  alphabet  by  the  N.  E.  A.  and  the  teach- 
ers of  the  country,  the  machinery  will  be  complete  and  in  running  order 
for  the  consummation  of  this  reform.” 

That  is,  the  N.  E.  A.  is  to  be  led  by  “ perfectly  legitimate  ” 
efforts  toward  an  end  it  suspects  not. 

President  Wheeler  of  the  University  of  California,  in  speak- 
ing of  some  of  the  phases  of  spelling  reform,  including  pho- 
netic spelling,  has  said,  “ The  interests  here  involved  are 
too  serious  to  be  treated  craftily,  or  on  the  principle  of  the 
entering  wedge ! ” This  is  certainly  true  of  this  radical  and 
unproved  alphabet.  If  it  is  being  urged  as  a step  toward 
phonetic  spelling  the  N.  E.  A.  should  be  in  a position  to  con- 
sider it  with  that  in  mind  and  the  far-reaching  results  of 
success  in  such  an  effort  should  be  weighed  before  taking 
even  a first  step  in  that  direction. 

a.  The  effect  on  indexes  and  all  alphabetical  lists  would  be 
tremendous.  All  words  beginning  with ''  a ” pronounced  as  in 
ale  ” would  be  spelled  with  an  '‘e  ” and  transferred  to  a new 
alphabetic  position.  Likewise  words  beginning  with  ‘'e  ” (eve) 
would  be  begun  with  an  ‘M,”  words  beginning  with  "‘i”  (ice) 
would  be  spelled  ‘‘  ai  ” and  transferred  to  the  a ” position, 
etc. 


TIIK  PHONETIC  KEY  ALPHABET 


9 


b.  It  would  make  the  English  written  in  the  new  spelling 
dilfer  as  much  from  English  written  in  the  present  spelling 
as  Italian  does  from  Latin.  Therefore  all  of  us  would  have 
as  much  trouble  in  learning  the  New  English  as  a Latin 
student  does  in  learning  Italian,  and  conversely,  one  know- 
ing only  the  New  English  would  have  equal  trouble  in  read- 
ing the  standard  literature  now  in  print. 

c*.  Unless  England  and  her  colonies  adopted  the  selfsame 
alphabet,  it  would  make  our  written  language  differ  markedly 
from  British  English.  This  would  certainly  be  a calamity. 

d.  If  phonetic  spelling  is  to  prevail,  a fixed  pronunciation 
must  first  be  secured,  or  either  ” will  be  spelled  aithur  by 
one  man,  Ither  by  another. 

e.  It  would  produce  such  anomalies  as  sain  (sign)  but  sig- 
nal; dam  (damn)  but  damneshun;  fioks,  the  name  of  the 
common  flower,  but  Phlox  its  genus  name;  jirenium  but 
the  genus  Geranium, 

Professor  W alter  Rippman  of  London  University,  Treasurer 
of  the  Simplified  Spelling  Society  of  England,  in  an  article 
advocating  Simplified  Spelling,”  says  the  following  : — 

“ I do  not  believe  that  it  [a  purely  phonetic  alphabet]  can  be  recom- 
mended for  general  use  in  place  of  the  present  spelling  for  the  following 
reasons : — 

“ A phonetic  spelling  necessarily  contains  a number  of  new  symbols 
that  are  quite  unfamiliar,  and  requires  a number  of  old  symbols  to  be 
used  in  an  unfamiliar  way. 

“The  phonetic  alphabet  is  not  easy  to  print  or  to  write.  The  most 
practical  and  far  the  most  widely  used  is  that  of  the  International  Pho- 
netic Association;  although  it  presents  less  diflSculty  in  this  respect  than 
any  other  with  which  I am  acquainted,  it  is  by  no  means  easy  to  print. 

“ A phonetic  spelling  must  differ  considerably  from  the  present  spell- 
ing; the  transition  from  the  changed  spelling  to  the  old  spelling  would 
give  a good  deal  of  trouble. 

“The  most  serious  objection,  however,  is  the  absence  of  uniformity 
in  English  speech.  ...  If  we  adopt  a phonetic  spelling  we  must  decide 
in  favour  of  one  particular  form  for  each  word  ; that  means,  we  must 
adopt  a definite  standard.  What  is  that  standard  ? If  we  spell  phoneti- 
cally in  accordance  with  Southern  English  usage,  will  our  friends  across 
the  border  and  across  the  ocean  consent  to  speak  as  we  do  ? Some  day 
it  may  come  to  pass;  but  not  soon.  If  we  were  to  seek  acceptance  for 
a scheme  of  spelling  which  presupposed  that  all  who  adopted  it  should 


10 


THE  PHONETIC  KEY  ALPHABET 


speak  the  English  of  a section  (not  even  of  a majority),  we  should  quickly 
find  that  our  efforts  were  wasted.” 

4.  The  proposed  N.  E.  A.  alphabet  teaches  erroneous 
ideas  as  to  the  real  differences  in  sound. 

The  report  states  distinctly  that  the  macron  has  one  in- 
variable use,  viz.,  to  indicate  the  long  sound  ” of  whatever 
letter  it  is  used  with.  Length  must  here  refer  to  quantity, 
duration  of  utterance.  One  sound  is  longer  than  another  if 
it  is  more  prolonged  in  utterance.  Test  the  proposed  N.  E.  A. 
alphabet  by  this  statement.  The  e ” is  used  for  the  vowel 
sound  in  men  ” ; ‘‘  e ” is  for  the  vowel  sound  in  ‘‘  prey,” 
day,”  etc.  That  is,  if  you  prolong  e ” you  will  get  the  sound 
of  the  vowel  in  prey.”  Is  this  so  ? Try  it  and  see.  Are  our 
dictionaries  to  mark  on  this  basis  and  our  children  to  be 
taught  on  this  basis?  Would  it  not  result  in  a strangely 
stilted  and  affected  speech  ? Pronounce  the  following  sen- 
tence, using  the  sound  of  e ” in  ‘‘  men  ” but  merely  pro- 
longing it.  ''At  de-brek  the  laiun  et  hiz  pre.”  Who  would 
understand  you  ? Can  any  one  seriously  contend  that  these 
two  sounds  differ  in  length  only? 

Again, " i ” and  " 1 ” are  to  be  considered  as  the  same  sound 
except  for  length.  But  you  can  prolong  the  " i ” in  " kin  ” until 
eternity  and  it  will  never  equal  the  " e ” in  " me,”  and,  con- 
versely, you  may  shorten  the  " e ” in  " me  ” until  it  almost 
vanishes  but  the  quality  of  the  vowel  will  never  be  that  of 
" i ” in  " fish.”  A Frenchman,  Italian,  or  Spaniard  naturally 
says  "feesh”  when  he  first  reads  the  English  word  “fish,” 
shortening  the  sound  of  the  “ e,”  but  do  we  wish  to  have  our 
children  taught  such  a pronunciation  ? The  same  objection 
holds  for  the  pair  of  sounds  “ u ” ( in  push)  and  “ u ” ( in 
mood),  and  for  “ u ” (in  up)  and  ''  u ” (in  urge),  and,  to  a less 
extent,  for  “ o ” and  “ o ” and  “a”  and  “ a,”  so  that  this  use  of 
the  macron  is  positively  misleading  instead  of  helpful.  It 
teaches  a thing  that  is  not  so  and  overlooks  distinctions  that 
must  be  made  and  emphasized  in  practical  teaching  if  any  real 
phonetic  work  is  to  be  accomplished. 

Again,  it  emphasizes  unduly  the  diphthongal  character  of 
“ i ” in  “ ice,”  but  does  not  mention  that  “ a ” in  “ ale,”  “ o ” in 


THE  PHONETIC  KEY  ALPHABET 


11 


“coat,”  and  other  long  vowels  are  also  diphthongs.  Such 
phonetic  inconsistency  is  certainly  illogical. 

Can  such  an  alphabet  justly  be  called  “ scientific,”  and  is 
it  likely  to  secure  universal  or  international  acceptance  ? 

5.  Many  of  the  symbols  are  ill-formed  and  lack  the  es- 
sential quality  of  distinctiveness. 

Difficulty  is  sure  to  arise  from  assigning  one  value  to  the 
ordinary  script  “ a ” and  another  value  to  the  open  “ a ” of 
print.  To  the  ordinary  man,  and  above  all,  to  the  child,  they 
are  both  nothing  but  “ a.”  In  writing,  the  trouble  is  increased. 

Is  there  any  advantage  in  having  the  letter  “ 0 ” with  the 
diacritic  within  ? It  is  as  much  a diacritic  as  if  it  were  above 
the  letter.  In  its  present  place  it  makes  the  “ o ” resemble  a 
filled-up  “ e ” and  requires  the  nicest  discrimination  to  see 
just  what  symbol  is  intended.  Here,  too,  script  doubles  the 
trouble,  for  in  handwriting  the  ordinary  “ o ” is  often  formed 
with  a little  loop  dropping  into  its  upper  part,  thus  exactly 
resembling  the  “ e.” 

The  two  forms  of  “ u ” are  so  nearly  alike  that  it  is  very  dif- 
ficult to  discriminate  between  them  and  to  remember,  or 
even  to  see  the  distinction,  when  it  is  pointed  out. 

The  two  forms  of  “ th  ” are  so  nearly  alike  that  it  is  almost 
impossible  without  a glass  to  see  any  difference  between  them, 
let  alone  to  recall  what  the  minute  differences  may  mean. 

In  “ di  ” and  “ di  ” what  advantage  can  come  from  the 
form  adopted  ? The  tie  here  is  needless  and  serves  no  prac- 
tical purpose. 

“ 3 ” also  seems  a needless  addition  where  “ zh  ” (coordin- 
ate with  “sh”)  is  so  readily  available.  It  is  practically  a 
script  “z,”  and  will  be  interpreted  as  “z  ” by  children  and  by 
most  adults. 

Of  the  ten  proposed  new  symbols,  therefore,  nine  seem 
impracticable  in  form. 

Again : a difficulty  arises  in  the  use  of  unmarked  vowels. 

In  this  proposed  alphabet  “ a,”  “ a ” (script  a),  “ e,”  “ i,”  “ o,” 
“ u,”  and  “ u ” (the  ordinary  unmarked  letters)  are  each 
limited  in  meaning  to  a certain  specific  sound.  In  our  ordin- 
ary English  spelling,  however,  each  vowel  letter  is  used  un- 


12 


THE  PHONETIC  KEY  ALPHABET 


marked  for  several  vowel  sounds.  The  unmarked  symbols 
of  the  proposed  alphabet  will  in  many  cases  not  differ  from 
the  letters  of  the  ordinary  alphabet;  in  others  they  will 
differ  but  slightly.  Confusion  must  inevitably  arise  in  the 
use  of  the  two  systems  — the  ordinary  spelling  and  an  un- 
marked phonetic  spelling.  The  pupil  or  the  foreigner  having 
been  taught,  for  instance,  that  an  unmarked a ” has  the  sound 
of  “ a ” in  at,”  will  naturally  apply  that  sound  to  the  un- 
marked a”  wherever  it  occurs,  and  will  say  ‘‘call,”  “hall,” 
“ ail  ” “ swan,”  “ any,”  etc.  Having  learned  that  an  un- 
marked “o”  is  to  be  pronounced  as  in  “poetic,”  he  will 
naturally  give  this  sound  to  the  unmarked  “ o ” in  “ got,’’ 
“ not,”  “ sop,”  and  call  them  “ goat,”  “ note,”  “ soap.”  In 
the  proposed  alphabet,  the  sound  of  “ u ” in  “ pull  ” is  given 
to  the  ordinary  unmarked  “u.”  The  pupil  will  give  this 
sound  instinctively  to  the  letter  wherever  he  sees  it.  The 
more  thorough  his  teacher,  the  deeper  will  it  be  drilled  into 
his  consciousness  that  the  plain,  ordinary  letter  “ u ” should 
be  given  this  sound.  But  this  sound  of  “ u,”  although  a usual 
one  in  European  languages,  is  one  of  the  rarest  in  English, 
being  less  than  one-half  of  one  per  cent  of  our  entire  utter- 
ance. Therefore,  when  the  child  or  a foreigner  comes  to  apply 
his  supposed  knowledge  and  gives  this  sound  in  such  words 
as  “much,”  “but,”  “hut,”  “hungry,”  “cull,”  “dull,”  etc., 
he  will  be  wrong  much  more  often  than  he  will  be  right.  It 
would,  certainly,  seem  clear  that  where  one  letter  of  the 
ordinary  spelling  has  so  many  speech- values  it  would  be 
much  more  definite  and  specific  to  use  some  certain  symbol 
added  to  the  letter  to  identify  definitely  each  of  these  values. 
Then  there  would  be  no  chance  for  confusion.  The  “ a ” with 
the  macron  would  always  have  one  sound ; “ a ” with  the  cir- 
cumflex another ; “ S,  ” with  the  breve,  another,  and  their 
interpretation  would  never  be  in  doubt.  Unmarked  “a,”  how- 
ever, is  ambiguous.  In  one  place  on  a page  it  may  mean  the 
sound  in  “ at  ” ; in  another,  the  sound  in  “ care  ” ; in  another, 
the  sound  in  “ ate,”  and  so  on. 

6.  It  proposes  to  substitute  for  an  alphabet  already  well- 
known  and  used  in  millions  of  textbooks  and  reference  books 


THE  PHONETIC  KEY  ALPHABET 


18 


another  alphabet  which  in  a very  similar  form  has  been 
used  by  one  publisher  only  and  has  proved  so  flat  a failure 
when  tried  in  textbooks  that  the  series  is  not  in  use  and  has 
been  confessedly  withdrawn  from  the  market. 

In  attempting  to  learn  the  value  of  the  new  alphabet  for 
use  in  textbooks  it  transpired  that  in  1902  and  1904  the 
Funk  & Wagnalls  Company  issued  two  books  of  a series 
using  an  alphabet  almost  the  same  as  that  now  proposed, 
but  careful  inquiry  can  discover  no  schools  using  the  system 
and  it  is  understood  that  the  books  are  withdrawn  from  the 
market.  Comment  is  needless,  further  than  to  ask  attention 
to  the  many  points  of  identity  and  close  resemblance  between 
the  proposed  N.  E.  A.  alphabet  and  that  used  in  these  readers. 
(See  the  Table  that  follows). 

In  contrast  with  this  is  the  fact  that  in  successful  school 
textbooks  wherever  a phonetic  alphabet  is  needed  one  based 
on  the  English  vowel- values  has  been  adopted  almost  inva- 
riably, whether  the  publishers  be  Messrs.  Ginn  & Company, 
Silver,  Burdett  & Company,  The  American  Book  Company, 
D.  C.  Heath  & Company,  Houghton  Mifflin  Company,  The 
Macmillan  Company,  Little,  Brown  & Company,  Newson  & 
Company,  and  whether  the  book  be  the  Hunter’s  Encyclo- 
pedic Dictionary,  Stormonth,  Johnson’s  Encyclopedia,  the 
International  Encyclopedia,  Borland’s  Medical  Dictionary, 
the  Oxford  Bible,  the  Nelson  Bible,  etc.  Letters  recently 
received  written  by  all  of  the  above-named  school-book  pub- 
lishers show  that  there  is  practical  unanimity  in  this.  It 
is  not  contended  that  all  of  the  publishers  or  publications 
mentioned  use  identically  the  same  symbols,  but  the  basis  is 
the  same  for  all  and  this  basis  is  in  conformity  with  the 
genius  of  the  English  language  and  does  not  attempt  to 
restore  values  long  since  discarded.  This  system  is  in  con- 
formity with  the  English  vowel  system. 

Some  of  the  Statements  in  the  Final  Report 

Uniformity.  — It  is  claimed  that  the  new  alphabet  will 
bring  about  uniformity,  and  the  statement  is  made  that  it  is 

highly  improbable  that  uniformity  in  our  system  of  indi- 
cating pronunciation  would  ever  come  about  by  the  spon- 


Column  1 is  the  proposed  N.  E.  A.  alphabet. 
Column  2 is  the  Funk  & Wagnall’s  alphabet. 


Key-word 

1 

2 

Key-word 

1 

2 

art 

d 

d 

nor 

e 

e 

artistic 

a 

a 

not 

e 

e 

aisle,  find 

ai 

ai 

oil 

ei 

ei 

out,  thou 

au 

au 

pit 

P 

P 

air 

a 

a 

rat 

r 

r 

at 

a 

a 

set 

s 

s 

be 

b 

b 

ship 

dh 

Sh 

chew 

dh 

ch 

ten 

t 

t 

day 

d 

d 

thin 

fh 

th 

prey 

e 

e 

that 

th 

dh 

men 

e 

e 

mood 

u 

u 

fee 

f 

f 

push 

u 

u 

go 

e 

S 

urge 

0 

© 

he 

h 

h 

hut 

V 

V 

marine 

I 

t 

vat 

V 

V 

tin 

i 

i 

win 

w 

w 

mute 

iu 

iu 

yes 

y 

y 

duration 

iu 

iu 

zest 

z 

z 

jaw 

j 

j 

azure 

3 

zh 

kin 

k 

c,  k 

let 

1 

1 

met 

m 

m 

net 

n 

n 

ask 

a 

a 

sing 

ng 

about ) 

e 

a 

bank 

g 

n 

over  ) 

er 

note 

0 

6 

candid 

1 

i 

poetic 

o 

, 0 

added 

e 

THE  PHONETIC  KEY  ALPHABET 


15 


taneous  agreement  of  rival  publishers.”  The  fact  is  that  uni- 
formity practically  exists  at  the  present  time,  so  far  as  school 
books  and  leading  reference  books  in  the  United  States  are 
concerned.  Over  90  per  cent  of  those  published  use  the  Web- 
ster system,  and  if  uniformity  is  desired  the  shortest  step 
would  be  to  adopt  an  alphabet  based  on  this  system.  To  change 
to  the  alphabet  recommended  by  the  N.  E.  A.  Committee 
would  involve  a complete  modification  of  current  usage. 

On  the  other  hand,  What  are  the  probabilities  that  this  pro- 
posed iY  E,  A,  alphabet  may  be  considered  final?  The  differ- 
ences between  this  alphabet  and  that  recommended  by  the 
American  Philological  Association  and  the  Modern  Language 
Association  are  shown  on  page  2 of  this  circular ; the  differ- 
ences between  this  alphabet  and  that  used  in  Murray’s  Eng- 
lish Dictionary  are  even  greater ; the  differences  between  this 
alphabet  and  the  alphabet  of  the  International  Phonetic 
Association  are,  also,  very  marked.  It  would  seem  that  until 
the  phoneticians  who  urge  these  new  systems  can  get  together 
it  would  be  of  doubtful  expediency  for  publishers  to  change, 
or  for  teachers  to  urge  a change. 

The  Copyright  Question,  — The  Report  says  : ''This  [new] 
alphabet  cannot  be  copyrighted  or  claimed  by  any  publisher 
and  will,  therefore,  be  free  to  all.”  The  natural  inference 
from  this  would  be  that  the  use  of  the  so-called  " Webster 
alphabet  ” has  been  hampered  by  copyright,  and  an  effort 
has  been  made  to  convey  this  impression  by  interested  par- 
ties. Indeed,  the  Funk  & Wagnalls  Company,  in  1905,  sent 
to  ail  the  active  members  of  the  National  Education  Asso- 
ciation a letter  in  which  occurred  the  following  statement : 

" The  Standard  Dictionary  Series  is  not  permitted  to  com- 
" pete  in  some  schools  — shut  out  solely  because  of  a mono- 
“ poly  held  by  its  rival  in  an  exclusive  copyrighted  system 
" of  diacritics.” 

The  system  that  is  used  in  nearly  all  schoolbooks  is,  of 
course,  what  is  generally  known  as  the  "Webster  system,” 
but  if  there  could  be  any  copyright  control  of  these  diacritics, 
nearly  all  of  which  have  been  in  use  for  a very  long  time,  the 
publishers  of  Webster’s  Dictionaries  have  certainly  been  gen- 
erous in  foregoing  their  copyright  privileges.  In  point  of  fact, 


16 


THE  PHONETIC  KEY  ALPHABET 


however,  it  is  doubtful  if  a claim  for  copyright  on  this  al- 
phabet could  be  sustained,  and  certainly  no  effort  has  ever 
been  made  to  enforce  such  a claim,  — nor  have  the  publish- 
ers of  Webster’s  Dictionaries  ever  put  any  obstacle  in  the 
way  of  other  publishers  who  may  have  wished  to  use  these 
phonetic  symbols. 

Vocal  Training.  — Again,  Professor  Calvin  Thomas  is 
quoted  as  saying  that  we  need  a ''  notation  that  we  can  teach 
to  the  young  in  school,  thereby  training  their  vocal  organs, 
and  leading  them  to  pronounce  the  language  more  accur- 
ately and  more  intelligently.”  Is  it  possible  that  teaching  any 
particular  system  of  notation  will  train  the  vocal  organs^  of 
children  ? Is  it  conceivable  that  by  teaching  that  the  sound  of 

a ” in  ''  ale  ” is  represented  by  ''  e ” the  child  will  more  easily 
learn  to  pronounce  this  diphthongal  vowel  sound  in  ale  ” 
than  he  would  if  the  sound  is  represented  by  an  “ a ” ? 

Teaching  Foreigners.  — Prof.  Thomas  also  states  that  we 
need  ''  a notation  that  will  facilitate  the  learning  of  English 
by  foreigners.”  Professor  Giroux,  of  the  American  Inter- 
national College  at  Springfield,  Mass.,  devotes  most  of  his 
time  to  teaching  foreigners  how  to  speak  English.  To  him 
come  foreigners  of  various  nationalities  who  have  already 
received  training  in  their  own  language,  and  are  accustomed 
to  seeing  the  sounds  represented  by  their  own  methods  of 
spelling.  They  should,  therefore,  be  prejudiced  in  favor  of  an 
alphabet  based  on  the  Continental  vowel  sounds,  but  Pro- 
fessor Giroux  says : — 

“ In  response  to  a request  that  I briefly  express  an  opinion  as  to  the 
desirability  of  making  the  changes  in  the  English  alphabet  proposed 
by  the  National  Education  Association,  I wish  to  state  that  I am  not  in 
favor  of  the  changes  proposed. 

“ The  task  of  making  the  changes  will  be  much  greater  than  the  gain 
therefrom  expected  to  be  accomplished. 

“The  Continental  phonetic  equivalents  proposed  will  revolutionize 
the  symbolizing  of  common  vowel  sounds  and  will  result  in  necessary 
and  lasting  confusion. 

“ The  new  symbols  have  no  special  advantage  over  the  old,  as  both  are 
arbitrary  signs  requiring  practically  the  same  amount  of  mental  effort 
to  master  them.  The  proposed  symbols  are  more  complicated  ; less 
practical.  They  exact  more  use  of  the  eyes. 


THE  PHONETIC  KEY  ALPHABET  17 

“External  diacritical  marks  are,  on  the  whole,  more  easily  distinguisli- 
able. 

“My  experience  in  teaching  phonetics  to  foreigners  confirms  the  posi- 
tion above  taken.  The  Continental  phonetics  are  of  no  especial  value 
either  to  immigrants  from  Europe  or  from  more  eastern  lands.  For 
years  the  phonetic  system  of  Webster’s  dictionaries  have  been  used  in 
our  institution.  They  are  practical  and  easily  learnable.  A change 
would  be  unwise.  This  conviction  has  grown  upon  me  as  my  experi- 
ence, beginning  about  a quarter  of  a century  ago,  has  lengthened  and 
I have  known  more  intimately  the  details  of  the  education  of  foreigners 
in  the  English  language.'’ 

A striking  statement,  — The  Report  further  says : ''  Indeed, 
upon  the  appearance  of  our  special  Report  of  last  July,  the 
publishers  of  one  of  our  leading  dictionaries  [this  was  stated 
at  Mobile  to  be  the  Funk  & Wagnalls  Standard  Dictionary, 
whose  pronunciations  are  being  edited  by  Prof.  Calvin 
Thomas,  named  above]  then  in  process  of  revision,  who  had 
devised  an  entirely  new  pronouncing  key  of  their  own,  the 
types  for  which  had  all  been  cast,  threw  away  this  new  type 
and  the  pages  already  set  and  started  in  anew,  using  this 
alphabet  as  a key  to  indicate  pronunciation.”  This  is  a very 
striking  statement,  but  the  facts  might  be  stated  in  another 
way,  viz.,  that  the  National  Education  Association  is  being 
urged  to  adopt  an  alphabet  that  is  almost  identical  with  the 
one  that  the  Funk  & W agnails  Company  has  been  using  since 
1903.  These  two  alphabets  are  shown  at  page  14  of  this  cir- 
cular ; the  addition  of  the  marks  for  obscuration  brings  them 
into  even  closer  conformity.  An  examination  of  the  two  will 
show  how  much  they  “ threw  away.”  It  is,  indeed,  fortunate 
that  this  alphabet  is  being  used  by  one  publisher,  for  it  will 
give  the  National  Education  Association  an  opportunity  to 
test  it  as  a practical  working  device.  It  would  seem,  however, 
not  unreasonable  to  suggest  that  until  the  result  of  such 
practical  testing  has  been  made  known,  the  National  Educa- 
tion Association  should,  at  least,  hold  its  judgment  in  abey- 
ance, rather  than  place  its  ‘‘  royal  seal  of  approval  ” upon  a 
device  that  up  to  the  present  time  has  failed  to  achieve  suc- 
cess. If  this  test  of  use  proves  that  the  alphabet  is  a useful 
tool  for  teachers  and  pupils,  they  will  demand  it,  and  pub- 
lishers will  hasten  to  meet  the  demand.  But  at  present  the 


18 


THE  PHONETIC  KEY  ALPHABET 


publishers,  at  least,  are  more  likely  to  recall  that  the  experi- 
ence of  the  past  does  not  augur  well  for  the  new  venture. 

Conclusion 

If  the  question  is  to  be  determined  now,  it  should  be  borne 
in  mind  that  since  1877,  two  systems  have  been  known  by 
all  who  are  interested  in  the  subject  of  phonetic  alphabets. 
One  system  has  gradually  won  adoption  from  practically  all 
publishers  and  is  familiar  to  hundreds  of  thousands  of  pupils 
and  teachers.  The  other  system,  in  spite  of  an  active  propa- 
ganda in  its  favor  by  one  publisher,  is  not  in  general  use. 
The  value  of  familiarity  cannot,  and  must  not,  be  overlooked ; 
cannot,  and  must  not,  be  underestimated.  Any  new  alpha- 
bet of  no  more  value  than  one  in  use  should  be  rejected  in 
favor  of  one  that  is  familiar.  Any  new  alphabet,  even  if 
somewhat  better  than  one  already  familiarly  known,  ought, 
and  would,  be  rejected  for  the  same  reason.  Any  new  alpha- 
bet, therefore,  ought  and  must  present  features  of  marked 
superiority  before  it  can  expect  to  be  favorably  considered 
in  comparison  with  one  already  familiar.  Has  not  the  test 
of  usage  practically  determined  the  rights  of  the  question, 
and  are  not  the  results  of  this  practical  use  really  in  accord 
with  the  sober,  common-sense  principles  of  the  language? 
If  the  principles  back  of  the  alphabet  proposed  by  this 
Committee  have  inherent  merits  for  English,  they  will  win 
in  the  long  run,  but  actual  use  is  the  only  criterion  to  go 
by,  and  it  is  difficult  to  see  why  the  National  Education 
Association  should  be  called  upon  to  indorse  one  system  any 
more  than  it  has  ever  been  called  upon  to  indorse  another. 


